Here's a fuel economy test of the EB vs the ED.


Enjoy....


2015 Ram EcoDiesel versus 2015 Ford F-150 2.7L EcoBoost - Highway MPG [Report] - TFLTruck.com: Truck News, Views & Reviews | The Fast Lane TruckTFLTruck.com: Truck News, Views & Reviews | The Fast Lane Truck

 

Really? 30 miles and based on each truck's computer? Show me 100-200 miles and hand calculated. Not meant as A ding on the OP.

 

If the MPG reports of the 2.7L were consistently reporting within 15% of the ecodiesel then I would feel that a strong argument could be made for a $3000 lower entry price, lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs. Plus, the 10 speed isn't here yet and that won't help the guys who will buy until that happens.

So, my issue is that the 2.7L MPG reports are all over the place and I feel that this little 30 mile loop wasn't fair to the 3.0L ecodiesel vs. the 2.7L.

 

I would love a rcsb 2.7 eb, and see what mpg I could really get out of a truck. Unfortunately if I buy something new it needs to seat 4, and 5 in a pinch. So a crew cab or sedan is what I would need, and I think the 2.7 would struggle to much compared to the other 2 engine choices.

 

I agree on the computer calculated mileage figures. Are they that reliable? I don't have one so I can't speak to that. And 30 miles is nowhere near enough mileage to determine real world mileage. Time for the guys at TFLT to get busy on a real 100+ fuel mileage calculation.

 

The computer calculated mileage on these trucks are very accurate. I don't even hand calculate anymore.

 

Well, where the computer calculated mileage on my Expedition is fairly accurate, the results weren't so great on the last Dodge truck I drove and the test is comparing across 2 different manufacturers. Your mileage may vary. ;^) thanks

 

Ford tends to be very accurate on calculating mpg. I've read where Dodge is not so accurate usually tending towards the high side. Not a good test IMO.

 

Drove a 2.7 in the drive event. it was an XLT Screw. MUCH peppier than my 2009 RCSB with 4.6

 

You need to drive a 2.7 ecoboost. .....it won't struggle it'll haul a**......I drove one and its very comparable if not faster than my '13 5.0.......turbocharged is Fords thing now and from what I've seen they're damn good at it.....the 3.5 is an outright hot rod

 

In the past the Dodges read high, that from a guy who had a shop & worked on lots of the Dodge diesels, he even owned one.

 

The "lie o meter" on my truck has been with 2/10's of a mile accurate in my favor of hand calculation. Good enough for me.

 

The computer in my 2009 F-150 was between 2 and 3 MPG higher than actual calculated mileage. On my Super Duty is appox. 0.3 MPG low.

It is easy to keep track and compare on fulley.com

 

Then why does the 3.5 do worse mpg towing then the 5.0. Because it struggles with tip in torque out of boost. If you want a glorified car it should be fine. In a truck I would buy like a crew cab. The engine would struggle when I do anything but drive it. In the truck I want rcsb it would be a viable option since the truck would weigh 700 or so pounds less.

 

You need to stop thinking and start observing. Drive one and then talk.

The new truck lost so much weight that it could have 4 fat guys in it and still be just as quick as 1 fat guy driving solo in an older truck with the same engine. If you're skinny then even better. I had to add about 50 Hp to my 3.5L Eco truck just to keep up with the new truck. (And they can just as well put a tune in theirs too and say, Sayonara!)

So could a stock 2.7L in a new truck keep up with a 12th gen 5.0L truck? Ya, it might be possible. In fact, Motor Trend observed their supercab 2.7 Eco to be faster than one of their older supercrew 5.0L trucks http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ab_first_test/